|
PT6A posted:This is why lawyers should never represent their own interests. It's always a lovely idea. You should always seek independent legal advice in matters that require legal advice, even if you yourself are qualified to provide legal advice. See also whatever the gently caress is going on with Bad Faith still having Virgil on the branding.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
For some reason I thought “THOMAS SMITH, an individual” was a nom de plume. Can you sue under one if that were the case?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:To me the wildest revelation is that a legal podcast helmed by a corporate contract lawyer only ever bothered with a verbal "50/50" agreement. I imagine that a large part of being a lawyer is having emotional distance from the situation and being able to keep your client from doing things that feel good/soothe their ego but won't actually help them legally. When you're your own lawyer you don't have that part of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
this is gonna sound silly, but i'm genuinely curious - would it be a good idea for spock to represent himself legally? e: assuming he had a JD and was a good lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:this is gonna sound silly, but i'm genuinely curious - would it be a good idea for spock to represent himself legally? No
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Only if the jurisdiction is in the per se us cluster
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
Is starfleet under admiralty law
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Is starfleet under admiralty law Good question, I don't believe their flag has golden tassels though....
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:this is gonna sound silly, but i'm genuinely curious - would it be a good idea for spock to represent himself legally? I think it tends to annoy the judge so that alone would be a reason not to probably
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
The justices sound skeptical about student loan relief but what the gently caress is it SCOCUS's lane if it's a trillion or not? "A trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, doesn't make much difference to Congress" Yeah so what? I don't care if it is a 69 gorillion dollars, the Congress wrote the law. I know it's oral arguments and all and often it is just reading tea leaves, but goddamnit Alito's comment made me mad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 03:31
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:this is gonna sound silly, but i'm genuinely curious - would it be a good idea for spock to represent himself legally? Vulcans are coldly logically until they're not. That's their whole thing, that they are seething with emotions under the façade. Absolutely should not represent himself Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Mar 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 04:26
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:The justices sound skeptical about student loan relief but what the gently caress is it SCOCUS's lane if it's a trillion or not? "Major question doctrine" is intentionally absurd the same way textualism is. It's only meant to sound good, it isn't meant to be consistently applied, it's just a shield to get to the result you want. The more hypocritical part of today is the standing issue. They are almost certain to kill the suit by the two borrowers, their claim of injury and redress are laughably thin. But the states suit should be killed too before it even got to them. The only entity that arguably was affected was MOHELA, and as even Barrett pointed out, they weren't even there and Missouri was trying to bootstrap their own standing despite: the agency being legally independent, and the agency standing to make money to implement the forgiveness. They are going to have to create a new standing doctrine to get to the actual merits and suddenly widen the amount of political lawsuits the federal courts will have to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 06:38
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Vulcans are coldly logically until they're not. That's they're whole thing, that they are seething with emotions under the façade. Absolutely should not represent himself Major background plot feature of newest trek series, brave new world, is the arm of Vulcan justice that goes out to deal with Vulcans who've permanently lost their poo poo and are now terrorists and mass murderers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 07:38
|
|
|
Spock represented himself in family court on his home planet that one time. I think it went fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 07:47
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:The justices sound skeptical about student loan relief but what the gently caress is it SCOCUS's lane if it's a trillion or not? The conservatives have their decision (kill student debt relief) and are working backwards for justification. They can't rely on a textualism argument because Biden would win in a 9-0 ruling if they actually went off of how the law's written. The SCOTUS knows no POTUS has the balls to call them on their bullshit with a "gently caress your ruling we're doing X" response because that would mean addressing the ever-growing issue of how absolutely hosed and out of control the judiciary is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:"Major question doctrine" is intentionally absurd the same way textualism is. It's only meant to sound good, it isn't meant to be consistently applied, it's just a shield to get to the result you want. We might actually get the loan relief not because the conservative justices think its a good idea, but because they have no way to actually kill the order without creating a lot more work for themselves in the future
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:We might actually get the loan relief not because the conservative justices think its a good idea, but because they have no way to actually kill the order without creating a lot more work for themselves in the future What work?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:What work? Deny cert Deny cert Deny cert
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
Devor posted:Deny cert That’s fine until there’s a circuit split because lower courts have no idea how to implement the inconsistent standards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:We might actually get the loan relief not because the conservative justices think its a good idea, but because they have no way to actually kill the order without creating a lot more work for themselves in the future Bold to assume they're worried about long term consequences. hobbesmaster posted:That’s fine until there’s a circuit split because lower courts have no idea how to implement the inconsistent standards. At which point they issue a ruling of "do X but not Y (because we like X and gently caress Y)" to further bend the country in the direction they've been pushing for decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:At which point they issue a ruling of "do X but not Y (because we like X and gently caress Y)" to further bend the country in the direction they've been pushing for decades. Roberts cares enough about this stuff to not go along with striking it down. He just needs someone else. Gorsuch?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That’s fine until there’s a circuit split because lower courts have no idea how to implement the inconsistent standards. Won't the Major Question doctrine basically always be in the DC circuit
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
The only conservative who seemed to have any issue with striking it down during recent arguments was Barrett and in her case it was because she doubts the plaintiffs have standing to bring the case to begin with (they don't, but the other 5 don't seem to care).
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The only conservative who seemed to have any issue with striking it down during recent arguments was Barrett and in her case it was because she doubts the plaintiffs have standing to bring the case to begin with (they don't, but the other 5 don't seem to care). My partner listening to the oral arguments and I asked her, if the conservative argument is that SOMONE BENEFITS aren't they opening up a bunch of people to sue for every program they don't like? My guess from all the analysis is that Roberts doesn't strike down the law but says Congress has to fix it and of course lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The only conservative who seemed to have any issue with striking it down during recent arguments was Barrett and in her case it was because she doubts the plaintiffs have standing to bring the case to begin with (they don't, but the other 5 don't seem to care). Barrett and Gorsuch seemed extremely skeptical of the 2nd case with the two borrowers and their standing and claims for relief. Gorsuch telegraphed that he also has a problem with the District Court's ruling that took two claims of injury and used it to nuke the whole program. The two borrowers claims are also ludicrous, arguing that even though we don't qualify, if they kill the program, they might try a new and magical program that maybe we can benefit from. That's WAY too far afield on the issue of redressability for even the lunatics on the SCOTUS. I got the feeling the second case was on there just to be killed. The first case though is more iffy. Barrett was clearly skepitcal that MOHELA would even have standing, and if they did, why the hell aren't they there. The idea that a state can act on behalf of an autonomous entity that they don't have any statutory or funding oversight over was clearly iffy. And even Barrett pointed out that MOHELA stands to make money implementing the forgiveness. IF the program survives, it will be on the standing question and it will be Gorsuch, Barrett, and maybe Roberts that rule the plaintiffs don't have standing. If they get over the hump to the merits however, there is no way that Roberts votes to save the program. He's in love with the "Major Questions" doctrine and this case is exactly the type of thing they had in mind when they invented it. I don't see how its any closer than 6-3 on merits. The problem the Conservatives are going to have on the standing question is that either case will create a new class of plaintiffs. The first case with the states is more palatable, but it will still create an entirely new class of plaintiffs that will come pouring into federal courts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:My partner listening to the oral arguments and I asked her, if the conservative argument is that SOMONE BENEFITS aren't they opening up a bunch of people to sue for every program they don't like? I keep hearing this as a reason the court will dismiss the suit but I'm skeptical myself. Wouldn't some GOP-funded lawsuits against every government program, giving the supreme court an opportunity to usurp congress and legislate for the country themselves with no accountability or restraint be like... exactly what they would love more than anything? E: yeah they could have done this for years and didn't, but it would have been risky with a 5-4 court because one badly timed election loss might flip it, but they just hit the jackpot and got 3 seats in 4 years so it's very unlikely they'll have to worry about what a liberal majority will do with their precedents VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 22:41
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:My partner listening to the oral arguments and I asked her, if the conservative argument is that SOMONE BENEFITS aren't they opening up a bunch of people to sue for every program they don't like? The conservative argument from SCOTUS's side isn't necessarily "SOMEONE BENEFITS" so much as it's "if Congress had meant to give anywhere near this much benefit to this many people, they probably would have said so in the original law Biden is trying to stretch here". Which isn't a terribly unreasonable argument, unfortunately. The real questions at hand were whether the Court is going to let Biden exploit Congress's mistakes or step in to correct them, as well as whether anyone could convince the Court they had standing to get involved in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
Yeah that too. Biden asked congress to pass debt forgiveness and they declined even when his party controlled both houses so kinda hard to argue debt forgiveness was their intent. Whereas like, food stamps or PPP loan forgiveness the intent was clear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Barrett and Gorsuch seemed extremely skeptical of the 2nd case with the two borrowers and their standing and claims for relief. Gorsuch telegraphed that he also has a problem with the District Court's ruling that took two claims of injury and used it to nuke the whole program. The two borrowers claims are also ludicrous, arguing that even though we don't qualify, if they kill the program, they might try a new and magical program that maybe we can benefit from. That's WAY too far afield on the issue of redressability for even the lunatics on the SCOTUS. I got the feeling the second case was on there just to be killed. That isn't Taylor and Brown's claim. Their claim is that they suffered a procedural injury and that doing the program under HEA would redress that. Their argument is that by using the HEROES Act, they didn't get a chance for notice and comment. In oral arguments, their lawyer was asked if Biden hadn't used HEROES if he would've used the HEA, and their lawyer said the debt relief program would be covered by HEA and the Biden admin almost certainly would've used that (and I think he's right about that part at least). If anything, I'd say they have a way better argument for standing than Missouri/Nebraska do, but SCOTUS is a mess so who knows. Also, to me, ACB didn't seem skeptical that MOHELA would have standing. The SG even pointed out right at the start that MOHELA would have standing. Barrett seemed to be getting pretty annoyed at the Nebraska AG not having a good answer for why isn't MOHELA a party, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
Actually I just remembered that Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch are textualists so congress' intent doesn't actually matter, they'll have to rule for Biden if they get to the merits
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah that too. Biden asked congress to pass debt forgiveness and they declined even when his party controlled both houses so kinda hard to argue debt forgiveness was their intent. Whereas like, food stamps or PPP loan forgiveness the intent was clear. I see that argument, but I disagree strongly with it. Just because a current Congress doesn't pass a new law doesn't say anything about the validity of an action under an old law passed by an old Congress. Plus it disincentivizes the President from trying to work through Congress which strikes me as bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 23:00
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:I see that argument, but I disagree strongly with it. Just because a current Congress doesn't pass a new law doesn't say anything about the validity of an action under an old law passed by an old Congress. Plus it disincentivizes the President from trying to work through Congress which strikes me as bad. If it's any consolation (it isn't to borrowers), you can once again lay you blame at feckless cowardly Democrats who could have passed this but didn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:If it's any consolation (it isn't to borrowers), you can once again lay you blame at feckless cowardly Democrats who could have passed this but didn't. Lol yeah, it's not any consolation to me, but I do lay a lot of blame on Dems who are gonna cost me $10k through their cowardice when it probably would've gotten them a metric fuckton of votes if they'd just sacked up and passed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
I mean we're essentially at the point where Dems are the ones refusing to break the filibuster and pass things that people want, and the courts are going to keep sending rights back to Congress where they will die and nobody will mention it again
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:I see that argument, but I disagree strongly with it. Just because a current Congress doesn't pass a new law doesn't say anything about the validity of an action under an old law passed by an old Congress. Plus it disincentivizes the President from trying to work through Congress which strikes me as bad. Although practically speaking, the congresses were mostly the same people, so they probably didn't intend that since they're still opposed to loan forgiveness. Or maybe they did at the time, you could argue that it was an emergency and they gave the president the power during a dire time when it looked like the economy might collapse at any second without massive intervention, maybe they were willing to let the president do whatever it might take including loan forgiveness, and if congress really wants to say takesies backsies now they could always repeal that part of the HEROES Act and they haven't sooo
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I mean we're essentially at the point where Dems are the ones refusing to break the filibuster and pass things that people want, and the courts are going to keep sending rights back to Congress where they will die and nobody will mention it again They wouldn't have even needed to break the filibuster, they could have passed it in the budget bill through reconciliation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:They wouldn't have even needed to break the filibuster, they could have passed it in the budget bill through reconciliation. And what? Offset 500 billion from elsewhere in the budget?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 01:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah that too. Biden asked congress to pass debt forgiveness and they declined even when his party controlled both houses so kinda hard to argue debt forgiveness was their intent. Whereas like, food stamps or PPP loan forgiveness the intent was clear. Congress also once explicitly considered the idea of Qualified Immunity and decided "no we don't want this" and dropped the idea, only for the courts to later create it as a judicial law themselves. At the end of the day, Congress's intent and desires are irrelevant to what the court wants to do because the other two branches have repeatedly shown that they will never crack down on judicial abuse. Especially at high levels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 01:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I would tend to agree, in a theoretical world. That seems surprising, I would've imagined that over the past couple of decades since HEROES was passed that a good chunk of those old fucks have died or retired. Then again I suppose Feinstein's been in there since 1867 or whatever so probably a bunch of them are clinging to life and power. ln any event, my line of thinking is the only question that should matter is if the statute is valid for it or not. Whether some other debt relief plan happened I don't think should have any bearing on it, but I also take a more textual line in interpretation. I think your reading of the act is a lot more expansive than how I read it, but I thought SG Prelogar made a very good case why the debt relief program here is a valid use of it
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:They wouldn't have even needed to break the filibuster, they could have passed it in the budget bill through reconciliation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 02:39
|
|